Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AGP speed 2X,4x,8X: What it really means!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
September 17, 2004 12:44:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

The number only refers to the transfer rate of the AGP bus, which is an
extension of the PCI bus. Yes, faster is better but it primarily aides
in reducing load time of the texture data to the video cards local
memory therefore frames per sec increase is negligible at best. 3D
Benchmark programs may show improved scores but that is due to the
reduced latency of the data getting to the card.
The reason the AGP bus was invented was increase performance with older
cards when Video RAM prices were high and they had 4MB~16MB. The idea
was to use some of the System RAM to store the data that the video card
couldn't hold then transfer that data to it directly with a minimum of
CPU usage. The aperture size setting was to define how much of the
system RAM could be used for this purpose. Modern cards with all their
RAM and processing power no longer benefit much if at all save the
transfer speed to reduce load times hence the switch to PCI-express.

More about : agp speed means

Anonymous
September 17, 2004 5:08:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Chris Madsen wrote:

> The number only refers to the transfer rate of the AGP bus, which is an
> extension of the PCI bus. Yes, faster is better but it primarily aides
> in reducing load time of the texture data to the video cards local
> memory therefore frames per sec increase is negligible at best. 3D
> Benchmark programs may show improved scores but that is due to the
> reduced latency of the data getting to the card.
> The reason the AGP bus was invented was increase performance with older
> cards when Video RAM prices were high and they had 4MB~16MB. The idea
> was to use some of the System RAM to store the data that the video card
> couldn't hold then transfer that data to it directly with a minimum of
> CPU usage. The aperture size setting was to define how much of the
> system RAM could be used for this purpose. Modern cards with all their
> RAM and processing power no longer benefit much if at all save the
> transfer speed to reduce load times hence the switch to PCI-express.

PCI Express is considerably faster than AGP. The switch is mostly about
marketing.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
September 17, 2004 9:21:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Chris Madsen" <take_no_shit@isp.com> wrote in message
news:cidcpc$akk$1@news.chatlink.com...
> The number only refers to the transfer rate of the AGP bus, which is an
> extension of the PCI bus.

You neglect to say that AGP is 64bits wide and runs at 133MHz (at 1X),
compared to 32bits and 33MHz for PCI. So even AGP 1X is 8 times faster than
PCI. People might be confused into thinking that AGP 8X is only 8 times
faster than PCI. This is not true: it is 64 times faster.

>Yes, faster is better but it primarily aides
> in reducing load time of the texture data to the video cards local
> memory therefore frames per sec increase is negligible at best.

[snip]

> Modern cards with all their
> RAM and processing power no longer benefit much if at all save the
> transfer speed to reduce load times hence the switch to PCI-express.

I don't agree here. The performance of PCI-express is not dramatically
better than AGP 8X. And since the performance increase you see when going
from AGP 4x to AGP 8x is very very small, expect a similarly pathetic
performance boost moving to PCI-express. Its principle advantages are for
Raid disk controllers and the like, because the old PCI standard has become
a real bottleneck; AGP has not.

With respect to graphics controllers, the only real advantages PCI-Express
offers are that (A) it is bi-directional. This is beneficial in some CAD
type modelling environments. and (B) the PCI-Express connector standard can
carry more current than the PCI connector. Bottom line is PCI-express is a
complete waste of time for gaming speed improvements. Anyone looking to
"upgrade" their graphics card specifically to take advantage of PCI-Express
is going to be very disappointed.

Chip
Related resources
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 3:01:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>You neglect to say that AGP is 64bits wide and runs at 133MHz (at 1X),
>compared to 32bits and 33MHz for PCI. So even AGP 1X is 8 times

AGP runs at 66Mhz at 1X not 133Mhz. 133Mhz is 2X
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 11:27:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Chip wrote:
>
> The performance of PCI-express is not dramatically
> better than AGP 8X. And since the performance increase you see when going
> from AGP 4x to AGP 8x is very very small, expect a similarly pathetic
> performance boost moving to PCI-express. Its principle advantages are for
> Raid disk controllers and the like, because the old PCI standard has become
> a real bottleneck; AGP has not.
> {snip}
> With respect to graphics controllers, the only real advantages PCI-Express
> offers are that (A) it is bi-directional. This is beneficial in some CAD
> type modelling environments. and (B) the PCI-Express connector standard can
> carry more current than the PCI connector. Bottom line is PCI-express is a
> complete waste of time for gaming speed improvements. Anyone looking to
> "upgrade" their graphics card specifically to take advantage of PCI-Express
> is going to be very disappointed.

I'm not sure about the CAD application benefits but the old PCI bus is
still fast enough for RAID as its capacity is 133MB/s and the best RAID
speed will only burst at ~85MB/s in real world. Another big difference
is that PCI-express is a "serial" connection not "parallel" like AGP or
standard PCI and serial devices can invariably be clocked much higher
for better throughput. Power shouldn't be much of an issue as most
hungry cards have connectors on them to get what they need directly from
the main supply anyway.

Chris
September 18, 2004 12:48:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"PRIVATE1964" <private1964@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040917190132.19486.00000779@mb-m22.aol.com...
> >You neglect to say that AGP is 64bits wide and runs at 133MHz (at 1X),
> >compared to 32bits and 33MHz for PCI. So even AGP 1X is 8 times
>
> AGP runs at 66Mhz at 1X not 133Mhz. 133Mhz is 2X

Of course it does. What on earth was I thinking of. Doh!

Chip
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 1:23:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> With respect to graphics controllers, the only real advantages
> PCI-Express offers are that (A) it is bi-directional. This is
> beneficial in some CAD type modelling environments. and (B) the

The other advantage to PCI express is having multiple slots. It always
irked me that if I upgraded my AGP card, I couldn't run both at the same
time. Now if your current card is slow with new games, but has great VIVO
features, you won't need to look for another card that also does VIVO when
shopping for a new card.
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 7:12:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>Of course it does. What on earth was I thinking of. Doh!
>

It happens to the best of us, but I have to admit very rarely with myself do I
slip up. ; )
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 7:16:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>"serial" connection not "parallel"

I really don't understand that concept. How can data be faster moving down a
single path? Is it because the path can be run at a much higher clock speed?
What happens with parrallel does the data get corrupted easier?
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 7:16:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

PRIVATE1964 wrote:
>>"serial" connection not "parallel"
>
>
> I really don't understand that concept. How can data be faster moving down a
> single path? Is it because the path can be run at a much higher clock speed?
> What happens with parrallel does the data get corrupted easier?

The speed difference between serial and parallel is; a byte needs to be
converted twice as often when its transmitted in parallel than when its
done serially. The main reason most things are done in parallel is
because its more cost effective and is easier to implement. Serial data
paths can't be too long because of resistance of the conductor which
causes data loss, thats why they use multiple shorter paths instead. The
main problem comes when there is too many of those shorter paths close
together and have "cross-talk" which causes data corruption. If any data
is lost or corrupt it needs to be re-sent and reduces throughput. This
happens more often with a parallel connection than serial, thats why
they needed the 80 conductor cables for IDE to support higher
throughput. Every other conductor is tied to ground to reduce cross-talk
between adjacent data lines. Hope this clears things up a bit.

Chris
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 11:05:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>
>The speed difference between serial and parallel is; a byte needs to be
>converted twice as often when its transmitted in parallel than when its
>done serially. The main reason most things are done in parallel is
>because its more cost effective and is easier to implement. Serial data
>paths can't be too long because of resistance of the conductor which
>causes data loss, thats why they use multiple shorter paths instead. The
>main problem comes when there is too many of those shorter paths close
>together and have "cross-talk" which causes data corruption. If any data
>is lost or corrupt it needs to be re-sent and reduces throughput. This
>happens more often with a parallel connection than serial, thats why
>they needed the 80 conductor cables for IDE to support higher
>throughput. Every other conductor is tied to ground to reduce cross-talk
>between adjacent data lines. Hope this clears things up a bit.
>
>Chris

It does thank you.
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 7:32:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"PRIVATE1964" <private1964@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040918150559.01015.00000777@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >
> >The speed difference between serial and parallel is; a byte needs to be
> >converted twice as often when its transmitted in parallel than when its
> >done serially. The main reason most things are done in parallel is
> >because its more cost effective and is easier to implement. Serial data
> >paths can't be too long because of resistance of the conductor which
> >causes data loss, thats why they use multiple shorter paths instead. The
> >main problem comes when there is too many of those shorter paths close
> >together and have "cross-talk" which causes data corruption. If any data
> >is lost or corrupt it needs to be re-sent and reduces throughput. This
> >happens more often with a parallel connection than serial, thats why
> >they needed the 80 conductor cables for IDE to support higher
> >throughput. Every other conductor is tied to ground to reduce cross-talk
> >between adjacent data lines. Hope this clears things up a bit.
> >
> >Chris
>
> It does thank you.

I think it's parallel communication that can't be used for long distances
rather than serial. With multiple lines of data, the signals start to skew
with long distances (where the data bits arrive at different times instead
the same time like they're supposed to). And if you try to clock it faster,
the skew becomes a big problem. With serial communication, the data bits
will arrive in the same order that you send them no matter how fast it's
going. I guess that's one reason why SATA came about.

Vu.
September 19, 2004 2:54:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Chris Madsen" <take_no_shit@isp.com> wrote in message
news:cih6qv$bkm$1@news.chatlink.com...
> Chip wrote:
> >
> > The performance of PCI-express is not dramatically
> > better than AGP 8X. And since the performance increase you see when
going
> > from AGP 4x to AGP 8x is very very small, expect a similarly pathetic
> > performance boost moving to PCI-express. Its principle advantages are
for
> > Raid disk controllers and the like, because the old PCI standard has
become
> > a real bottleneck; AGP has not.
> > {snip}
> > With respect to graphics controllers, the only real advantages
PCI-Express
> > offers are that (A) it is bi-directional. This is beneficial in some
CAD
> > type modelling environments. and (B) the PCI-Express connector standard
can
> > carry more current than the PCI connector. Bottom line is PCI-express
is a
> > complete waste of time for gaming speed improvements. Anyone looking to
> > "upgrade" their graphics card specifically to take advantage of
PCI-Express
> > is going to be very disappointed.
>
> I'm not sure about the CAD application benefits but the old PCI bus is
> still fast enough for RAID as its capacity is 133MB/s and the best RAID
> speed will only burst at ~85MB/s in real world.

That's just not true I am afraid. I agree that often it is the case, but
certainly its not always the case. 2 x 74GB Raptors will transfer 140MB/s
in real world tests. (And BTW the maximum you seem to be able to get
through PCI is only around 117MB/s: although the spec allows 133, that's not
really available in practice.) Also, you completely ignore multiple disk
Raid systems. Since - broadly speaking - 4 x 100GB is not much different in
price from 1 x 400GB, Raid 5 becomes a real possibility for even home PC's.
Why not buy 4 smaller disks instead of 1 large one? Its much faster than a
single disk and offers resiliance too. A Raid 5 setup like this just can't
work properly on PCI.

[snip]

> Power shouldn't be much of an issue as most
> hungry cards have connectors on them to get what they need directly from
> the main supply anyway.

I agree its not much of an issue. But its a fudge, and its only been
brought about by the very limited power supply capability of the PCI slot.
The new PCI-Express standard aims to improve that. Certainly there will
always be some cards that will still need their own dedicated power supply,
but there will be many "mid-range" cards that won't need it on PCI-Express.
And this will help to keep the costs down and simplify wiring etc. I know
its not a big deal, but it is a marginal improvement.

Chip
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 11:38:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

PRIVATE1964 wrote:

>>
>>The speed difference between serial and parallel is; a byte needs to be
>>converted twice as often when its transmitted in parallel than when its
>>done serially. The main reason most things are done in parallel is
>>because its more cost effective and is easier to implement. Serial data
>>paths can't be too long because of resistance of the conductor which
>>causes data loss, thats why they use multiple shorter paths instead. The
>>main problem comes when there is too many of those shorter paths close
>>together and have "cross-talk" which causes data corruption. If any data
>>is lost or corrupt it needs to be re-sent and reduces throughput. This
>>happens more often with a parallel connection than serial, thats why
>>they needed the 80 conductor cables for IDE to support higher
>>throughput. Every other conductor is tied to ground to reduce cross-talk
>>between adjacent data lines. Hope this clears things up a bit.
>>
>>Chris
>
> It does thank you.

Except that it makes no sense.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 12:02:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Chris Madsen wrote:

> PRIVATE1964 wrote:
>>>"serial" connection not "parallel"
>>
>>
>> I really don't understand that concept. How can data be faster moving
>> down a single path? Is it because the path can be run at a much higher
>> clock speed?

Got it in one.

>> What happens with parrallel does the data get corrupted
>> easier?

It can if the circuit is badly designed.

The real purpose of PCI Express though is to make money for Intel. There
are alternatives that give the same performance and allow the use of
existing PCI boards in the same slots that take the higher performance
boards. But that would mean that people didn't have to throw away there
entire investment in older hardware to use the new technology.

> The speed difference between serial and parallel is; a byte needs to be
> converted twice as often when its transmitted in parallel than when its
> done serially.

"Converted"? From what to what? And why would serial take fewer
"conversions" than parallel?

> The main reason most things are done in parallel is
> because its more cost effective and is easier to implement.

"Most things"? Such as?

> Serial data
> paths can't be too long because of resistance of the conductor which
> causes data loss, thats why they use multiple shorter paths instead.

So how does using parallel data paths gain you anything over serial if the
parallel paths are shorter? And it's possible to transfer about the same
amount of over 100 meters of CAT5 cable using gigabit Ethernet as over the
few inches of parallel circuit trace that makes up the PCI bus, so what's
wrong with your picture?

> The
> main problem comes when there is too many of those shorter paths close
> together and have "cross-talk" which causes data corruption. If any data
> is lost or corrupt it needs to be re-sent and reduces throughput.

I see, so what mechanism on the PCI bus resends corrupted data?

> This
> happens more often with a parallel connection than serial,

All else being equal it does. It's debatable whether running a serial
connection 16 times faster gives any real improvement in reliability
though.

> thats why
> they needed the 80 conductor cables for IDE to support higher
> throughput. Every other conductor is tied to ground to reduce cross-talk
> between adjacent data lines.

The first part that you've gotten unambiguously right.

> Hope this clears things up a bit.
>
> Chris

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 6:01:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>Except that it makes no sense.

It makes sense.
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 8:36:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

PRIVATE1964 wrote:

>>Except that it makes no sense.
>
> It makes sense.

Only if you don't try to apply logic to it.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
September 22, 2004 2:17:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"PRIVATE1964" <private1964@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040921220140.29600.00001117@mb-m29.aol.com...
> >Except that it makes no sense.
>
> It makes sense.

Sorry Private, I am with J Clark on this one. I think you have some useful
concepts, but some of it is not quite right. For example this "byte needs
to be converted twice..." stuff. That's complete nonsense. The data is
parallel in the first pace. The CPU reads and writes words, not bits, or
even bytes. Its very easy for a parallel controller to read data in
parallel and output it in parallel. Ironically, to do it serially takes
more work.

Chip.
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 5:24:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>> It makes sense.

I meant it makes sense in a general way.

Like the extra 40 conductors in an EIDE cable which help keep crosstalk down.
That's accurate. Length of cable also. EIDE is maxed at 18" I believe but the
serial cable could be longer and run faster because of less chance of cross
talk. It's a lot easier to shield a single cable then to shield a large number
of cables like with EIDE.

That's all I know and I'm sticking by it. : )
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 6:08:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Like the extra 40 conductors in an EIDE cable which help keep crosstalk down.
That's accurate. Length of cable also. EIDE is maxed at 18" I believe but the
serial cable could be longer and run faster because of less chance of cross
talk. It's a lot easier to shield a single cable then to shield a large number
of cables like with EIDE.

That's all I know and I'm sticking by it. : )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I needed it
because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 6:08:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Courseyauto wrote:

> Like the extra 40 conductors in an EIDE cable which help keep crosstalk
> down. That's accurate. Length of cable also. EIDE is maxed at 18" I
> believe but the serial cable could be longer and run faster because of
> less chance of cross talk. It's a lot easier to shield a single cable then
> to shield a large number of cables like with EIDE.

If serial cable is necessary to get 1 meter out of 150 MB/sec ATA, then how
do they manage to run U320 SCSI over 25 meters of parallel cable?

Sorry, but that argument doesn't wash.

Further, SATA cables are not shielded.

PATA goes 18" because that's what the spec said and the chip designers
worked to the spec. SATA goes one meter because that's what the spec said
and the chip designers worked to the spec. U320 SCSI goes 25 meters
because that's what the spec said and the chip designers designed to the
spec. If a new PATA spec came out that required 200 MB/sec over 30 meters
on 40-wire parallel cable then the chip designers would probably have found
a way to make it work.

>
> That's all I know and I'm sticking by it. : )
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------
> I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I
> needed it
> because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 11:52:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I needed
>it
>because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG

The 18" is just a spec, it doesn't mean longer won't work but there is a risk
of having data corruption.
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 11:55:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>f a new PATA spec came out that required 200 MB/sec over 30 meters
>on 40-wire parallel cable then the chip designers would probably have found
>a way to make it work.

I agree, but then you would still have the wide cable.
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 11:55:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

PRIVATE1964 wrote:

>>f a new PATA spec came out that required 200 MB/sec over 30 meters
>>on 40-wire parallel cable then the chip designers would probably have
>>found a way to make it work.
>
> I agree, but then you would still have the wide cable.

And that's the only real benefit of SATA that I can see that is inherent in
its being serial--that narrow cable is a lot easier to route.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 2:55:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>
>And that's the only real benefit of SATA that I can see that is inherent in
>its being serial--that narrow cable is a lot easier to route.

Here's a question for you that will keep me from having to search on related to
SATA. I plan on getting a new serial hard drive soon.

I'm using a NF7-S with serial connections.
What is the maximum throughput for a hard drive connected to the serial
connection.

Is that connection spec'd for 150Mb/sec? I've read that the serial drives that
are out now are not "true native" serial drives so there is no way they could
ever hit 150Mb/sec.

What can you tell me about this please.

Thanks
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 3:11:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I needed
>it
>because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG

The 18" is just a spec, it doesn't mean longer won't work but there is a risk
of having data corruption.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Apparently a useless spec.
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 3:39:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Courseyauto wrote:

>>I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I
>>needed it
>>because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG
>
> The 18" is just a spec, it doesn't mean longer won't work but there is a
> risk of having data corruption.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------
> Apparently a useless spec.

The spec is what the designers work to. To get reliable operation they put
in some margin, so you can get away with a slightly longer cable or one
that is slightly out of spec or whatever, but it's not something you should
count on.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 3:48:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

PRIVATE1964 wrote:

>>
>>And that's the only real benefit of SATA that I can see that is inherent
>>in its being serial--that narrow cable is a lot easier to route.
>
> Here's a question for you that will keep me from having to search on
> related to SATA. I plan on getting a new serial hard drive soon.
>
> I'm using a NF7-S with serial connections.
> What is the maximum throughput for a hard drive connected to the serial
> connection.
>
> Is that connection spec'd for 150Mb/sec? I've read that the serial drives
> that are out now are not "true native" serial drives so there is no way
> they could ever hit 150Mb/sec.
>
> What can you tell me about this please.

There is no drive in the world that can fill a 100 MB/sec pipe. WD Raptors
have a maximum sustained transfer rate of 72 MB/sec, 7K400s max at 62.1,
Cheetah X15s max at 86. The limit is the bits per track and the rotational
speed, not the interface. So it doesn't matter whether the interface can
hit 150 or 133 or 100.

With PATA and two drives per channel, it's possible for both drives together
to fill a 150 MB/sec channel but SATA allows only one per channel so that's
not an issue.

In any case, some use a bridge chip, others don't. IIRC Seagate is not
using a bridge chip. I don't recall what WD is doing, but their Raptors
outperform any SATA drive from any other manufacturer, although the Hitachi
7K250 and 7K400 come close, so whether they're using a bridge chip or not
clearly doesn't make any real-world difference.

>
> Thanks

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 4:55:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>Apparently a useless spe

Not really I guess it depends on how much you value your data though. Because
It only takes one time to lose everything.
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 4:59:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>Apparently a useless spe

Not really I guess it depends on how much you value your data though. Because
It only takes one time to lose everything.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
Hanv't lost a thing yet in 2 years since i built it,whens it gonna happen?
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 4:59:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Courseyauto wrote:

>>Apparently a useless spe
>
> Not really I guess it depends on how much you value your data though.
> Because It only takes one time to lose everything.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------
> Hanv't lost a thing yet in 2 years since i built it,whens it gonna happen?

When you can least afford it to of course.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 6:09:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>Hanv't lost a thing yet in 2 years since i built it,whens it gonna happen?

I honestly don't know, but if it happens a year from now you will lose even
more data then you have now.

It only takes once.
September 23, 2004 2:15:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:cithok02vi2@news1.newsguy.com...
> PRIVATE1964 wrote:
>
> >>
> >>And that's the only real benefit of SATA that I can see that is inherent
> >>in its being serial--that narrow cable is a lot easier to route.
> >
> > Here's a question for you that will keep me from having to search on
> > related to SATA. I plan on getting a new serial hard drive soon.
> >
> > I'm using a NF7-S with serial connections.
> > What is the maximum throughput for a hard drive connected to the serial
> > connection.
> >
> > Is that connection spec'd for 150Mb/sec? I've read that the serial
drives
> > that are out now are not "true native" serial drives so there is no way
> > they could ever hit 150Mb/sec.
> >
> > What can you tell me about this please.
>
> There is no drive in the world that can fill a 100 MB/sec pipe. WD
Raptors
> have a maximum sustained transfer rate of 72 MB/sec, 7K400s max at 62.1,
> Cheetah X15s max at 86. The limit is the bits per track and the
rotational
> speed, not the interface. So it doesn't matter whether the interface can
> hit 150 or 133 or 100.

.... apart from the burst speed which with drives with 16MB cache now can be
a significant factor, especially with video editing applications (where the
caching algorithms have a better chance because of the big files). 16MB
bursting at 150MB/s is not insigificant.

> With PATA and two drives per channel, it's possible for both drives
together
> to fill a 150 MB/sec channel but SATA allows only one per channel so
that's
> not an issue.
>
> In any case, some use a bridge chip, others don't. IIRC Seagate is not
> using a bridge chip. I don't recall what WD is doing, but their Raptors
> outperform any SATA drive from any other manufacturer, although the
Hitachi
> 7K250 and 7K400 come close, so whether they're using a bridge chip or not
> clearly doesn't make any real-world difference.

The Raptors have a bridge chip too. They are basically SCSI drives with an
adapter chip on them.

Chip
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 2:15:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Chip wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:cithok02vi2@news1.newsguy.com...
>> PRIVATE1964 wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >>And that's the only real benefit of SATA that I can see that is
>> >>inherent in its being serial--that narrow cable is a lot easier to
>> >>route.
>> >
>> > Here's a question for you that will keep me from having to search on
>> > related to SATA. I plan on getting a new serial hard drive soon.
>> >
>> > I'm using a NF7-S with serial connections.
>> > What is the maximum throughput for a hard drive connected to the serial
>> > connection.
>> >
>> > Is that connection spec'd for 150Mb/sec? I've read that the serial
> drives
>> > that are out now are not "true native" serial drives so there is no way
>> > they could ever hit 150Mb/sec.
>> >
>> > What can you tell me about this please.
>>
>> There is no drive in the world that can fill a 100 MB/sec pipe. WD
> Raptors
>> have a maximum sustained transfer rate of 72 MB/sec, 7K400s max at 62.1,
>> Cheetah X15s max at 86. The limit is the bits per track and the
> rotational
>> speed, not the interface. So it doesn't matter whether the interface can
>> hit 150 or 133 or 100.
>
> ... apart from the burst speed which with drives with 16MB cache now can
> be a significant factor, especially with video editing applications (where
> the
> caching algorithms have a better chance because of the big files). 16MB
> bursting at 150MB/s is not insigificant.

I fail to see how it makes a difference with video editing, where you are
trying to stream several gigabytes of data.

How much real-world difference do you see between a drive with a 16 meg
cache and an otherwise identical drive with a 2 meg cache?

>> With PATA and two drives per channel, it's possible for both drives
> together
>> to fill a 150 MB/sec channel but SATA allows only one per channel so
> that's
>> not an issue.
>>
>> In any case, some use a bridge chip, others don't. IIRC Seagate is not
>> using a bridge chip. I don't recall what WD is doing, but their Raptors
>> outperform any SATA drive from any other manufacturer, although the
> Hitachi
>> 7K250 and 7K400 come close, so whether they're using a bridge chip or not
>> clearly doesn't make any real-world difference.
>
> The Raptors have a bridge chip too. They are basically SCSI drives with
> an adapter chip on them.

I see. So you are claiming that they have a SCSI interface bridged to SATA?
Or are you just saying that being constructed to the same quality standards
as server-grade drives somehow makes them have a different interface?
>
> Chip

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
September 23, 2004 2:20:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Courseyauto" <courseyauto@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040922191133.29600.00001154@mb-m29.aol.com...
> >I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I
needed
> >it
> >because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG
>
> The 18" is just a spec, it doesn't mean longer won't work but there is a
risk
> of having data corruption.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------
> Apparently a useless spec.

Like XP2500's specced to run at 1733 MHz when they will all do 2133? or
GF6800GT's specced to run at 350MHz when they will all do 375+ or perhaps
400+ or 425+ or
Memory that's specced to run 200MHz but will actually do 220MHz

Come on, a spec is just a spec. The manufacturer has to build in some
"slack" so that they don't get lots of problems in the field. They want
some comfort built in, so that their components still perform in less than
ideal conditions. So if you have better conditions, you can oftern exceed
the spec.

That's just the way the world is. Its not a useless spec.

Chip
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 2:20:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Chip wrote:

>
> "Courseyauto" <courseyauto@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040922191133.29600.00001154@mb-m29.aol.com...
>> >I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I
> needed
>> >it
>> >because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG
>>
>> The 18" is just a spec, it doesn't mean longer won't work but there is a
> risk
>> of having data corruption.
>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------------------------
>> Apparently a useless spec.
>
> Like XP2500's specced to run at 1733 MHz when they will all do 2133? or
> GF6800GT's specced to run at 350MHz when they will all do 375+ or perhaps
> 400+ or 425+ or
> Memory that's specced to run 200MHz but will actually do 220MHz
>
> Come on, a spec is just a spec. The manufacturer has to build in some
> "slack" so that they don't get lots of problems in the field.

Also to reduce their reject rate at the factory. If they designed the
XP2500s to run at exactly 1733 MHz they'd end up rejecting half their
production.

> They want
> some comfort built in, so that their components still perform in less than
> ideal conditions. So if you have better conditions, you can oftern exceed
> the spec.
>
> That's just the way the world is. Its not a useless spec.
>
> Chip

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 11:43:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>The spec is what the designers work to. To get reliable operation they put
>in some margin, so you can get away with a slightly longer cable or one
>that is slightly out of spec or whatever, but it's not something you should
>count on.
>

Totally agree.

They design for probably worse case scenario. So he might never have any
problems or one day he could lose everything.
Like I posted it all depends on how much you value your personal data like
family pictures, spread sheets, word documents, porn etc.
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 11:48:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>--
>--John
>Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Thanks. I realize they could never hit 150Mb sustained, but is it possible for
150Mb burst with those sata connections on the NF7-S?
If you have a drive even if in the future that is capable of 150Mbs burst speed
can the NF7-S connections support that speed?
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 11:50:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>where the
>caching algorithms have a better chance because of the big files). 16MB
>bursting at 150MB/s is not insigificant.

Do the NF7-S sata connections support 150Mb burst speed?
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 11:52:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>When you can least afford it to of course.
>

Isn't that always the case.
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 1:36:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>where the
>caching algorithms have a better chance because of the big files). 16MB
>bursting at 150MB/s is not insigificant.

<Do the NF7-S sata connections support 150Mb burst speed?

They are on the PCI buss,so what do you think?
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 6:31:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>
> They are on the PCI buss,so what do you think?

I don't know that's why I asked. Maybe you could explain it in some detail.
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 2:21:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>
> They are on the PCI buss,so what do you think?

I don't know that's why I asked. Maybe you could explain it in some detail.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------

In detail it will run at PCI buss speed,and you know what that is.
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 5:17:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>In detail it will run at PCI buss speed,and you know what that is.

I honestly I don't know the maximum bandwith of the PCI bus.

Do I have to beg to get the answer?
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 5:55:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>In detail it will run at PCI buss speed,and you know what that is.

I honestly I don't know the maximum bandwith of the PCI bus.

Do I have to beg to get the answer?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
133mbs
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 5:55:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Courseyauto wrote:

>
>>In detail it will run at PCI buss speed,and you know what that is.
>
> I honestly I don't know the maximum bandwith of the PCI bus.
>
> Do I have to beg to get the answer?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> 133mbs

No, 133 MB/sec. MegaBytes, not millibits. While the m isn't
serious--nobody with a clue would make that mistake, the b vs B is a
different story--bits vs bytes.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 2:47:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>133mbs

So then the SATA connections don't even support 150Mb/s. Isn't that a
requirement of the specs that they support 150Mb/s?
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 2:50:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>No, 133 MB/sec. MegaBytes, not millibits. While the m isn't
>serious--nobody with a clue would make that mistake, the b vs B is a
>different story--bits vs bytes.

Let me see if I have this right.

The PCI bus can support 133MB/sec, but the SATA supports 150Mb/sec. So there is
plenty of bandwith on the PCI bus for the SATA connections right?
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 2:50:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

PRIVATE1964 wrote:

>>No, 133 MB/sec. MegaBytes, not millibits. While the m isn't
>>serious--nobody with a clue would make that mistake, the b vs B is a
>>different story--bits vs bytes.
>
> Let me see if I have this right.
>
> The PCI bus can support 133MB/sec, but the SATA supports 150Mb/sec. So
> there is plenty of bandwith on the PCI bus for the SATA connections right?

The PCI bus has a theoretical maximum throughput of 32x33e6 or 1,056,000,000
bits/sec or 132,000,000 bytes per second. SATA has a theoretical maximum
throughput of 150,000,000 bytes per second. So to answer you question, no,
there is not plenty of bandwidth on the PCI bus. For now it's moot since no
drive provides sustained transfers in excess of 100. Running RAID it's
quite possible to saturate the PCI bus. That's why PCI-X and PCI Express
exist and why servers are often made with more than one PCI bus.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 8:33:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>The PCI bus has a theoretical maximum throughput of 32x33e6 or 1,056,000,000
>bits/sec or 132,000,000 bytes per second. SATA has a theoretical maximum
>throughput of 150,000,000 bytes per second. So to answer you question, no,
>there is not plenty of bandwidth on the PCI bus. For now it's moot since no
>drive provides sustained transfers in excess of 100. Running RAID it's
>quite possible to saturate the PCI bus. That's why PCI-X and PCI Express
>exist and why servers are often made with more than one PCI bus.
>

OK that clears up what I wanted to know very well. Thanks to you and everyone
else.

How much does the burst rate matter in the scheme of things? How often does a
drive hit that burst rate speed?
!